Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51525179127/in/photostream
The way the bottom shields faded in the same manor.  I assume it's the salt used on the highway during winter freezes that created this.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51509600516/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51503482372/in/photostream/
Then in both these it's odd, but not impossible if you know the history of K-14 in South Hutchinson, as the K-96 shields posted with the K-14 shields are much more faded.

K-14 was added later to overlap K-96 through South Hutchinson.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/7ZBCmv3FjEmZLzEW6
This traffic signal sign in Salisbury, MD is quite strange.

[plain]

A horizontal sign for horizontal signals? I mean... I guess it works...

[kirbykart]

I believe something similar to that was posted in 'Alberta Highways' in the Canada board.

[formulanone]

I believe something similar to that was posted in 'Alberta Highways' in the Canada board.

I think it was similar to this one in Calgary:

[jakeroot]

Just me, or should the sign always reflect the orientation? If the signal is vertical, the sign should show a vertical signal. A horizontal signal should have a horizontal signal on the sign, diagonal signal a diagonal sign, etc...

[Big John]

 ^^ also should the signs account for 4-section signals, 5 section signals and doghouses? 

[JoePCool14]

Just me, or should the sign always reflect the orientation? If the signal is vertical, the sign should show a vertical signal. A horizontal signal should have a horizontal signal on the sign, diagonal signal a diagonal sign, etc...

I actually really don't like the horizontal version of the sign. Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but it just looks off.

[jakeroot]

Just me, or should the sign always reflect the orientation? If the signal is vertical, the sign should show a vertical signal. A horizontal signal should have a horizontal signal on the sign, diagonal signal a diagonal sign, etc...

I actually really don't like the horizontal version of the sign. Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but it just looks off.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, would you agree that it should reflect the orientation of the light, correct? Especially since horizontal signals are unusual and it may help to provide some warning not just of the approaching signal, but also the unusual orientation.

^^ also should the signs account for 4-section signals, 5 section signals and doghouses?

Of course! There should be a warning sign for each signal. So if there's a three section RYG, five section doghouse, and flashing yellow arrow, there needs to be a warning sign for each on a single gigantic pole. Both sides of the road!

(/s)

[US 89]

Just me, or should the sign always reflect the orientation? If the signal is vertical, the sign should show a vertical signal. A horizontal signal should have a horizontal signal on the sign, diagonal signal a diagonal sign, etc...

What if you're in a place like New Mexico, where 1) horizontal signals are everywhere and 2) you usually get both?

[PurdueBill]

Just me, or should the sign always reflect the orientation? If the signal is vertical, the sign should show a vertical signal. A horizontal signal should have a horizontal signal on the sign, diagonal signal a diagonal sign, etc...

I actually really don't like the horizontal version of the sign. Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but it just looks off.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, would you agree that it should reflect the orientation of the light, correct? Especially since horizontal signals are unusual and it may help to provide some warning not just of the approaching signal, but also the unusual orientation.

^^ also should the signs account for 4-section signals, 5 section signals and doghouses?

Of course! There should be a warning sign for each signal. So if there's a three section RYG, five section doghouse, and flashing yellow arrow, there needs to be a warning sign for each on a single gigantic pole. Both sides of the road!

(/s)

Akron has a pattern-accurate warning sign for a HAWK but after the HAWK was changed to a full RYG signal, the sign remained.

[jakeroot]

Just me, or should the sign always reflect the orientation? If the signal is vertical, the sign should show a vertical signal. A horizontal signal should have a horizontal signal on the sign, diagonal signal a diagonal sign, etc...

What if you're in a place like New Mexico, where 1) horizontal signals are everywhere and 2) you usually get both?

I would only use the sign in horizontal orientation if more than half of the signals were horizontal. Otherwise the vertical signal sign is more than adequate.

Eg, in parts of Texas, I would personally orient the W3-3 sign 90 degrees anti-clockwise. But since most intersections in NM have at least two vertical signals (one left, one right), I would post the W3-3 sign in its standard orientation.

I suppose I sound rather pedantic, but it's literally the same sign just turned 90 degrees. I don't think it's too much to ask for it to represent the orientation of most of the lights at the intersection.

[roadman65]

I have to agree. Why have a sign literally tell you what signal heads are being used on a guide that is intended to warn you?

As long as a driver gets the message and I don't think they think about it when they see it.  In fact Texas uses the norm despite they have many horizontal signals. I've seen the ones in Marshall along US 59 that are standard signs on a green guide with horizontal installs as the signal.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48519836552/in/album-72157709079979562/

[jakeroot]

This is the sign used in Japan:



It's not totally outrageous for the warning signs to reflect the nature of the signals, especially if it's a simple 90 degree turn.

Still, should it always reflect the signal orientation? No, I think it's useful in areas where it's abnormal. Eg, horizontal in a sea of verticals, or vertical in a sea of horizontal. But if the vast majority of signals are horizontal (eg, Japan), I think the signal warning sign should be horizontal normally.

[D-Dey65]

From my first bike rides of the year:

Princeton, NJ, for how rich it is, can't afford good looking shields


Also a mismatch of an arrow color scheme for the most random scenic byway in the U.S., the Upper Freehold Historic Farmland Byway, at a new roundabout

Somehow, I don't think good roads matter to the people of Princeton. Were they not the ones who lobbied for the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway, creating the long infamous "Trenton Gap" on I-95? As for the Upper Freehold Historic Byway, I suspect that the reason for the blue sign with the yellow arrow is a way to indicate that the byway is a county road.

[roadfro]

This is the sign used in Japan:



It's not totally outrageous for the warning signs to reflect the nature of the signals, especially if it's a simple 90 degree turn.

Still, should it always reflect the signal orientation? No, I think it's useful in areas where it's abnormal. Eg, horizontal in a sea of verticals, or vertical in a sea of horizontal. But if the vast majority of signals are horizontal (eg, Japan), I think the signal warning sign should be horizontal normally.

I think I agree with you here. And you can somewhat read into Section 2A of the MUTCD regulations regarding sign design that this rotation potentially could be allowed:

Section 2A.06 Design of Signs
<...>
Standard:
06 The term legend shall include all word messages and symbol and arrow designs that are intended to convey specific meanings.

07 Uniformity in design shall include shape, color, dimensions, legends, borders, and illumination or retroreflectivity.

08 Standardization of these designs does not preclude further improvement by minor changes in the proportion or orientation of symbols, width of borders, or layout of word messages, but all shapes and colors shall be as indicated.

09 All symbols shall be unmistakably similar to, or mirror images of, the adopted symbol signs, all of which are shown in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book (see Section 1A.11). Symbols and colors shall not be modified unless otherwise provided in this Manual. All symbols and colors for signs not shown in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book shall follow the procedures for experimentation and change described in Section 1A.10.

Option:
10 Although the standard design of symbol signs cannot be modified, the orientation of the symbol may be changed to better reflect the direction of travel, if appropriate.

The manual appears to allow for minor rotations of a symbol and for mirror images of existing symbols (I see this employed most frequently with pedestrian signs mounted on the left side of the road, where the walking man symbol is mirrored), and allows orientation to change for direction of travel.

The exact context of a 90° rotation would not seem to be supported directly in the manual text. However, given that the symbol is still the same, I'd think this application would pass muster. This also appears to be supported by Interpretation 2-564(I)-Orientation of Airport Symbol from 2005, which allowed the airport symbol sign used as a trailblazer to be rotated 90° in conjunction with a left/right arrow sign where signing a turn was needed to reach the airport destination. That interpretation states "the MUTCD provides the flexibility for State and local agencies to change the orientation of symbols or the layout of word messages."

EDIT: Clarified a parenthetical

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52660352768/in/photostream/
Onto another oddity is the fact that one lane of I-5 in Redding, CA is OK for trucks.

[Rothman]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52660352768/in/photostream/
Onto another oddity is the fact that one lane of I-5 in Redding, CA is OK for trucks.

Hm.  Wonder if that's just saying that the center lane is also okay in addition to the right lane for trucks when there's a left lane prohibition.

[Mapmikey]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52660352768/in/photostream/
Onto another oddity is the fact that one lane of I-5 in Redding, CA is OK for trucks.

Hm.  Wonder if that's just saying that the center lane is also okay in addition to the right lane for trucks when there's a left lane prohibition.

A little after that overpass is one that says trucks have to be in the right lane only and the SB direction has the same trucks OK sign
https://goo.gl/maps/iDoub7Y5pt9KLBV3A

The overpass in the flicker photo also has a trucks right only sign in the opposite direction.

[roadfro]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52660352768/in/photostream/
Onto another oddity is the fact that one lane of I-5 in Redding, CA is OK for trucks.

Hm.  Wonder if that's just saying that the center lane is also okay in addition to the right lane for trucks when there's a left lane prohibition.

A little after that overpass is one that says trucks have to be in the right lane only and the SB direction has the same trucks OK sign
https://goo.gl/maps/iDoub7Y5pt9KLBV3A

The overpass in the flicker photo also has a trucks right only sign in the opposite direction.

I seem to recall that California has some blanket provision of law where trucks are limited to the right lane or a certain number of right-hand lanes on multi-lane freeways unless otherwise signed. So you will occasionally see "TRUCKS OK" signage in situations where keeping trucks far to the right might not be advantageous or practical (e.g. approaching a system interchange where maybe the right three lanes will exit but trucks wouldn't normally be allowed in a lane far enough left to avoid exiting). I'll leave it to the California-based members to chime in here to correct me if I'm wrong or provide the specifics.

[Occidental Tourist]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52660352768/in/photostream/
Onto another oddity is the fact that one lane of I-5 in Redding, CA is OK for trucks.

Hm.  Wonder if that's just saying that the center lane is also okay in addition to the right lane for trucks when there's a left lane prohibition.

A little after that overpass is one that says trucks have to be in the right lane only and the SB direction has the same trucks OK sign
https://goo.gl/maps/iDoub7Y5pt9KLBV3A

The overpass in the flicker photo also has a trucks right only sign in the opposite direction.

I seem to recall that California has some blanket provision of law where trucks are limited to the right lane or a certain number of right-hand lanes on multi-lane freeways unless otherwise signed. So you will occasionally see "TRUCKS OK" signage in situations where keeping trucks far to the right might not be advantageous or practical (e.g. approaching a system interchange where maybe the right three lanes will exit but trucks wouldn't normally be allowed in a lane far enough left to avoid exiting). I'll leave it to the California-based members to chime in here to correct me if I'm wrong or provide the specifics.

You're correct. On highways of less than 3 lanes in one direction, trucks must stay in the right lane except to pass or make a left turn. On highways of 4 or more lanes in one direction, trucks must stay in the right two lanes. Vehicle Code sec. 21655.

That being said, I see trucks in the number two lane all the time on freeways, and occasionally, even in the number one lane. As you pointed out, it becomes particularly more noticeable near interchanges, where trucks on the through route will move way left and out of their designated lanes in order to avoid slowdowns on the right from the interchange traffic. Lax enforcement has become the norm here.

[Occidental Tourist]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52660352768/in/photostream/
Onto another oddity is the fact that one lane of I-5 in Redding, CA is OK for trucks.

If you look at the yellow sign in the background, it tells through traffic to use the left two lanes for the next two miles. The next two exits are spaced close together with an on ramp and subsequent off ramp not spaced far enough apart per current design standards. And one of exits has a partial cloverleaf. I would presume these two exits cause a lot of slowing, so the sign for the trucks is giving trucks permission to travel in the number 2 lane rather than follow the law that would usually only allow trucks to use the number 2 lane for passing on a three-lane freeway.

[Amaury]

Interstate 205's milage and exit numbers don't reset when entering Washington (northbound) or Oregon (southbound).

[ethanhopkin14]

Interesting.  Heading westbound on Interstate 10, the first exit in California is E. Hobson Way, Exit 242, but the gore sign downstream is Exit 243.  Added to this, the road is actually Hobsonway and is also Business Loop 10 that the interstate completly ignores. 

[machias]

I think it's interesting that the older distance sign has state route marker digits in Series D, while the newer one has them in Series F.  Isn't it supposed to be the other way round?

It is suppose to be the other way around. I don't know what happened with the original sign, but quite a few signs in that area from that era (1988 or 1989) had series D numerals on the wider shields and it always looked weird.

The newer sign is from the very end of the use of Series F.  Although NYSDOT R2 can still be a little uneven with the numerals in shields, I've noticed both Series D and Series E in the later installations (though I haven't been in the area in quite a while).